Literature DB >> 30335669

Intracochlear Electrocochleography: Response Patterns During Cochlear Implantation and Hearing Preservation.

Christopher K Giardina1,2, Kevin D Brown1, Oliver F Adunka3, Craig A Buchman4, Kendall A Hutson1, Harold C Pillsbury1, Douglas C Fitzpatrick1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Electrocochleography (ECochG) obtained through a cochlear implant (CI) is increasingly being tested as an intraoperative monitor during implantation with the goal of reducing surgical trauma. Reducing trauma should aid in preserving residual hearing and improve speech perception overall. The purpose of this study was to characterize intracochlear ECochG responses throughout insertion in a range of array types and, when applicable, relate these measures to hearing preservation. The ECochG signal in cochlear implant subjects is complex, consisting of hair cell and neural generators with differing distributions depending on the etiology and history of hearing loss. Consequently, a focus was to observe and characterize response changes as an electrode advances.
DESIGN: In 36 human subjects, responses to 90 dB nHL tone bursts were recorded both at the round window (RW) and then through the apical contact of the CI as the array advanced into the cochlea. The specific setup used a sterile clip in the surgical field, attached to the ground of the implant with a software-controlled short to the apical contact. The end of the clip was then connected to standard audiometric recording equipment. The stimuli were 500 Hz tone bursts at 90 dB nHL. Audiometry for cases with intended hearing preservation (12/36 subjects) was correlated with intraoperative recordings.
RESULTS: Successful intracochlear recordings were obtained in 28 subjects. For the eight unsuccessful cases, the clip introduced excessive line noise, which saturated the amplifier. Among the successful subjects, the initial intracochlear response was a median 5.8 dB larger than the response at the RW. Throughout insertion, modiolar arrays showed median response drops after stylet removal while in lateral wall arrays the maximal median response magnitude was typically at the deepest insertion depth. Four main patterns of response magnitude were seen: increases > 5 dB (12/28), steady responses within 5 dB (4/28), drops > 5 dB (from the initial response) at shallow insertion depths (< 15 mm deep, 7/28), or drops > 5 dB occurring at deeper depths (5/28). Hearing preservation, defined as < 80 dB threshold at 250 Hz, was successful in 9/12 subjects. In these subjects, an intracochlear loss of response magnitude afforded a prediction model with poor sensitivity and specificity, which improved when phase, latency, and proportion of neural components was considered. The change in hearing thresholds across cases was significantly correlated with various measures of the absolute magnitudes of response, including RW response, starting response, maximal response, and final responses (p's < 0.05, minimum of 0.0001 for the maximal response, r's > 0.57, maximum of 0.80 for the maximal response).
CONCLUSIONS: Monitoring the cochlea with intracochlear ECochG during cochlear implantation is feasible, and patterns of response vary by device type. Changes in magnitude alone did not account for hearing preservation rates, but considerations of phase, latency, and neural contribution can help to interpret the changes seen and improve sensitivity and specificity. The correlation between the absolute magnitude obtained either before or during insertion of the ECochG and the hearing threshold changes suggest that cochlear health, which varies by subject, plays an important role.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30335669      PMCID: PMC6534483          DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000659

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  48 in total

1.  The Compound Action Potential in Subjects Receiving a Cochlear Implant.

Authors:  William C Scott; Christopher K Giardina; Andrew K Pappa; Tatyana E Fontenot; Meredith L Anderson; Margaret T Dillon; Kevin D Brown; Harold C Pillsbury; Oliver F Adunka; Craig A Buchman; Douglas C Fitzpatrick
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 2.311

2.  Intracochlear recordings of electrophysiological parameters indicating cochlear damage.

Authors:  Oliver F Adunka; Stefan Mlot; Thomas A Suberman; Adam P Campbell; Joshua Surowitz; Craig A Buchman; Douglas C Fitzpatrick
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 2.311

3.  Real-Time Intracochlear Electrocochleography Obtained Directly Through a Cochlear Implant.

Authors:  Michael S Harris; William Jason Riggs; Kanthaiah Koka; Leonid M Litvak; Prashant Malhotra; Aaron C Moberly; Brendan P O'Connell; Jourdan Holder; Federico Alberto Di Lella; Carlos Mario Boccio; George B Wanna; Robert F Labadie; Oliver F Adunka
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 2.311

4.  Detection of intracochlear damage during cochlear implant electrode insertion using extracochlear measurements in the gerbil.

Authors:  Faisal I Ahmad; Baishakhi Choudhury; Christine E De Mason; Oliver F Adunka; Charles C Finley; Douglas C Fitzpatrick
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2012-01-17       Impact factor: 3.325

5.  Role of electrode placement as a contributor to variability in cochlear implant outcomes.

Authors:  Charles C Finley; Timothy A Holden; Laura K Holden; Bruce R Whiting; Richard A Chole; Gail J Neely; Timothy E Hullar; Margaret W Skinner
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 2.311

6.  Cochlear Implant Electrode Effect on Sound Energy Transfer Within the Cochlea During Acoustic Stimulation.

Authors:  Nathaniel T Greene; Jameson K Mattingly; Herman A Jenkins; Daniel J Tollin; James R Easter; Stephen P Cass
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 2.311

7.  Round window electrocochleography before and after cochlear implant electrode insertion.

Authors:  Oliver F Adunka; Christopher K Giardina; Eric J Formeister; Baishakhi Choudhury; Craig A Buchman; Douglas C Fitzpatrick
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2015-09-11       Impact factor: 3.325

8.  Evidence for the expansion of adult cochlear implant candidacy.

Authors:  René H Gifford; Michael F Dorman; Jon K Shallop; Sarah A Sydlowski
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 3.570

9.  Intra- and Postoperative Electrocochleography May Be Predictive of Final Electrode Position and Postoperative Hearing Preservation.

Authors:  Brendan P O'Connell; Jourdan T Holder; Robert T Dwyer; René H Gifford; Jack H Noble; Marc L Bennett; Alejandro Rivas; George B Wanna; David S Haynes; Robert F Labadie
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2017-05-29       Impact factor: 4.677

10.  A Model-Based Approach for Separating the Cochlear Microphonic from the Auditory Nerve Neurophonic in the Ongoing Response Using Electrocochleography.

Authors:  Tatyana E Fontenot; Christopher K Giardina; Douglas C Fitzpatrick
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2017-10-23       Impact factor: 4.677

View more
  18 in total

1.  Hair cell and neural contributions to the cochlear summating potential.

Authors:  Andrew K Pappa; Kendall A Hutson; William C Scott; J David Wilson; Kevin E Fox; Maheer M Masood; Christopher K Giardina; Stephen H Pulver; Gilberto D Grana; Charles Askew; Douglas C Fitzpatrick
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2019-04-03       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Cochlear implants and other inner ear prostheses: today and tomorrow.

Authors:  Lina Aj Reiss
Journal:  Curr Opin Physiol       Date:  2020-08-14

3.  Relationship Between Intraoperative Electrocochleography and Hearing Preservation.

Authors:  Thomas Lenarz; Andreas Buechner; Bruce Gantz; Marlan Hansen; Viral D Tejani; Robert Labadie; Brendan O'Connell; Craig Alan Buchman; Carla V Valenzuela; Oliver F Adunka; Michael S Harris; William J Riggs; Douglas Fitzpatrick; Kanthaiah Koka
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2022-01-01       Impact factor: 2.311

4.  External Validation of Cochlear Implant Screening Tools Demonstrates Modest Generalizability.

Authors:  David S Lee; Jacques A Herzog; Amit Walia; Jill B Firszt; Kevin Y Zhan; Nedim Durakovic; Cameron C Wick; Craig A Buchman; Matthew A Shew
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2022-09-01       Impact factor: 2.619

5.  Impact of stimulus frequency and recording electrode on electrocochleography in Hybrid cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Viral D Tejani; Rachael L Carroll; Paul J Abbas; Carolyn J Brown
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2019-10-18       Impact factor: 3.208

6.  Light sheet microscopy of the gerbil cochlea.

Authors:  Kendall A Hutson; Stephen H Pulver; Pablo Ariel; Caroline Naso; Douglas C Fitzpatrick
Journal:  J Comp Neurol       Date:  2020-08-03       Impact factor: 3.215

Review 7.  Electrocochleography in cochlear implantation: Development, applications, and future directions.

Authors:  Jason H Barnes; Linda X Yin; Aniket A Saoji; Matthew L Carlson
Journal:  World J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2020-06-04

8.  Intracochlear Electrocochleography and Speech Perception Scores in Cochlear Implant Recipients.

Authors:  Carla V Valenzuela; Jeffery T Lichtenhan; Shannon M Lefler; Kanthaiah Koka; Craig A Buchman; Amanda J Ortmann
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2021-05-21       Impact factor: 2.970

9.  Increasing the reliability of real-time electrocochleography during cochlear implantation: a standardized guideline.

Authors:  K Schuerch; M Waser; G Mantokoudis; L Anschuetz; M Caversaccio; W Wimmer; S Weder
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2022-01-20       Impact factor: 3.236

10.  Intraoperative Observational Real-time Electrocochleography as a Predictor of Hearing Loss After Cochlear Implantation: 3 and 12 Month Outcomes.

Authors:  Stephen O'Leary; Robert Briggs; Jean-Marc Gerard; Claire Iseli; Benjamin P C Wei; Sylvia Tari; Alex Rousset; Christo Bester
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 2.619

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.